5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Livny, Orel region.
6.  The applicant suffers from locomotor impairment resulting from a gunshot wound he received in 1997.
7.  On an unspecified date the applicant was found guilty of assault on a police officer, theft and illegal possession of firearms and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. He was sent to correctional colony no. IK-2 in Livny, Orel region, to serve the prison sentence. He was released in September 2013.
8.  The Government submitted copies of official floor plans of the colony premises and statements from the colony administration. The information provided can be summarised as follows:
Period of detention
Unit no.
Total surface in square metres (including exercise area)
Dormitory surface area in square metres
Number of inmates assigned to the dormitory
Number of sleeping places
From 6 to 17 November 1999
Quarantine section
216
No data provided
No data provided
44
From 17 November 1999 to 14 July 2006
Unit 15
690
9.  Each unit comprised a dormitory, a lavatory, a cafeteria, a TV room, a storage room and a locker room. At all times the applicant was provided with an individual bed, bedding and cutlery. All the dormitories were equipped with a ventilation system in good working order. The windows in the dormitories, except for those in the quarantine section, were not covered with grilles and provided adequate access to daylight. All the premises in the correctional colony were equipped with electric lighting. The lavatory was separate from the living area of the units. Each toilet was located in a separate cubicle. The inmates were allowed at least one hour’s exercise twice a day in a specially designated area which was equipped with a volleyball playground and exercise bars.
10.  The Government submitted a copy of the daily schedule of correctional colony no. IK-2 which reiterated the routines as set out in the model daily schedule approved by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation for correctional colonies (see paragraph 22 below). According to the Government, most detainees spent their day at work. Because of the disability, the applicant was not obligated to work. He was offered a job in a sewing shop where the working conditions were appropriate for his disability.
11.  The applicant did not challenge the data submitted by the Government in respect of the measurements and population of the dormitories. He submitted that the beds were arranged in two tiers which prevented access to daylight. The dormitories were not equipped with any ventilation system. They were infested with lice. The lighting was dim and insufficient. The water supply was irregular. The level of medical service provided was unsatisfactory. The applicant did not provide any detail as to his daily routines. Nor did he explain whether he had accepted a job offer in the sewing shop or not.
12.  On numerous occasions the applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell for failure to comply with internal regulations. Each time his head was allegedly shaved.
13.  In response to a complaint by the applicant about the conditions of his detention, on 30 March 2007 the Federal Department of Corrections confirmed that the applicant was detained in an overcrowded dormitory where the living area per inmate was below the statutory two square metres. In particular, the letter stated as follows:
“The medical division of the Federal Department of Corrections has considered your complaint ... .
Pursuant to Article 99 § 1 of the Russian Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences, the personal space in the correctional colony afforded per convict cannot be below 2 square metres. The disabled persons are not entitled to additional personal space. Currently the number of convicts serving a prison sentence in correctional colony no. IK-2 exceeds its maximum capacity by 6%. The conditions of detention are the same in all units.
The use of shower facilities by the convicts, laundry and drying of the bed linen and working clothes are carried out in accordance with the schedule ... approved by the head of the colony. The shower, laundry and drying facilities are in a working order.”
14.  On 23 August 2007 the applicant allegedly submitted to the administration of the correctional colony a letter addressed to the Court. According to the applicant, the letter was not dispatched. He brought a civil claim for damages against the correctional colony.
15.  On 14 August 2008 the Livny District Court of the Orel Region dismissed the applicant’s claims as unsubstantiated. The court noted that the inmates who testified on the applicant’s behalf could not state the date on which the applicant had allegedly submitted the letter to the administration in their presence. The court also examined the outgoing correspondence registers, which contained no reference to the applicant’s letter of 23 August 2007. Nor was there any information confirming that the witnesses who testified on the applicant’s behalf submitted any documents to the administration on that day.
16.  On 10 December 2008 the Orel Regional Court upheld the judgment of 14 August 2008 on appeal.
17.  It appears that in 2005 the applicant was recognised as “category three” disabled owing to his locomotor impairment.
18.  Prior to 2006 the applicant had purchased orthopaedic shoes at his own expense. On 13 September 2006 the applicant placed an order for orthopaedic shoes with the correctional colony. On 3 April 2007 he received four pairs of shoes free of charge.
19.  On an unspecified date he brought an action against the correctional colony seeking, inter alia, reimbursement of the sums he had paid for the shoes on previous occasions.
20.  On 15 May 2007 the Livny District Court of the Orel Region dismissed the applicant’s claim in full. The court noted, inter alia, that the applicant had not asked the colony to provide him with orthopaedic shoes prior to 2006. Once he had placed the order, the colony had complied with its obligation to provide him with the shoes free of charge. The delay in making the shoes had been caused by the financial difficulties of the shoe factory. The court further noted that the applicant had in any event failed to demonstrate what expenses he had incurred when purchasing the shoes himself. Nor was it incumbent on the administration of the correctional colony to take steps to purchase shoes for him in the absence of any corresponding request on his part. On 11 July 2007 the Orel Regional Court upheld the judgment of 15 May 2007 on appeal.